CGRP Peptide and Regenerating Sensory Axons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CGRP peptide, a widely expressed constituent of sensory neurons, plays important roles in nerve function and repair when axons are severed. CGRP synthesis declines, yet peptide nonetheless accumulates in severed axon endbulbs. In this work we explore an apparent selective and ongoing expression of CGRP peptide in regenerative sensory axon sprouts. Following sural nerve crush in rats out to 14 days, regenerating and branching sensory axons had intense and selective expression of CGRP, not associated with endbulbs. Parent L4 and L5 perikarya and axons in the sural nerve proximal to crush, however, did not exhibit such heightened CGRP presence. Instead, back labeling of regenerating axons with fluorogold or diamidino yellow labeled perikarya with reduced CGRP expression. Similarly, ATF-3, a robust marker of axotomized neurons, was associated with reduced, rather than elevated expression of alphaCGRP mRNA. Unexpectedly, however, we identified an enlarged secondary population of intact uninjured neurons, frequently smaller and projecting to the dorsal horn with new and heightened intense CGRP expression but not ATF-3- or tracer-labeled. Distal regenerating sensory axons selectively express CGRP peptide despite reduced perikaryal content, a phenomenon not explained by simple accumulation. Having an injured neighbor neuron, however, may also paradoxically alter how CGRP is expressed in intact neurons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".